Death penalty, right to life, legitimate defense, globalization

Provisions concerning the death penalty
scattered across two distant texts ****

| Here is the cover of the 188-page document sent to all French voters on the electoral rolls. |
|---|

Here is page 21 of the document (the one you received)

You can read the two lines forming Article II-62, titled Right to Life. The matter is settled in two lines.

However, this text is incomplete. You can find what completes it in the document you received, on pages 170 (bottom right) and 171 (top left). The same text appears in the PDF version we scanned (you may verify this):

The additional passages, which state that these "negative" definitions are also included in the charter, carry significant weight:

Death is not inflicted as a violation of this article when it results from the use of force rendered absolutely necessary

What constitutes a use of force resulting in the death of individuals " rendered absolutely necessary"? Who decides when it is "absolutely necessary," and on what criteria!?

a) to ensure the defense of any person against any illegal violence

Note that the classic phrase "legitimate defense" is not used. What is "illegal violence"? How can a text of such gravity remain so vague?

b) to carry out a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained

What is a "lawful arrest"? If understood correctly, if one must arrest someone "lawfully," one is entitled to... kill them in advance—for example, after having "lawfully ordered them to surrender and present themselves to the authorities." Similarly, one may kill someone attempting to escape, for instance during an arrest (where they would immediately be "lawfully detained" in the vehicle transporting them).

Who drafted these articles? A defector from the Death Commandos?

a) to suppress, in accordance with the law, a riot or an insurrection

What law? A riot is a "popular uprising." An "insurrection" is an armed uprising against the established power.

Where lies the boundary between peaceful demonstration and riot, insurrection? How many armed individuals (provocateurs) must be present in a group for a demonstration to be considered an insurrection? In this context, a single gunshot, a remotely detonated bomb exploding within the police forces, triggered by a provocateur, could justify a bloodbath.

" A state may provide in its legislation for the death penalty for acts committed during war or imminent danger of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in cases provided for by this legislation and in accordance with its provisions..."

What is "imminent danger of war"? Note the ellipsis at the end of the sentence.

Here are these two pages of the text in the PDF version:

Globalization, accompanied by liberalism, is the explosion of inequalities, leveling down for all "ordinary people," total poverty for poor countries, and the emergence of "new billionaires" everywhere: in China, Poland, France. This constitution seeks to institutionalize an "Europeanization" with liberalism and free competition written in black and white as an economic system—meaning the right to hire the least demanding workers in countries with the lowest or nonexistent social charges. Social gains will be leveled down. Internationally, read Ziegler’s book: “The Empire of Shame,” very harsh (Fayard Ed.). The problem is that there is no alternative today as there was with Marxism. Solutions could only come through total and immediate transparency of banking transactions. We must demand the lifting of all banking secrecy, in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands (Bahamas), etc., and the disappearance or alignment of tax havens like Monaco, Liechtenstein, which are merely mailboxes for multinational corporations. Why? Because these "states" impose no corporate taxes, no inheritance taxes. Read the comic strip "Largo Winch"—you’ll find all this explained in depth, including the tragic consequences of deregulation and the vast range of fraudulent maneuvers routinely used by multinationals to increase profits. We must set minimum purchase prices for goods like coffee to prevent Ethiopians from starving. We must completely and immediately cancel the debts of third-world countries (235 billion dollars for Brazil, which is forced to grow coffee for export just to earn revenue to pay interest on its crushing debt, while in the country people simply cannot afford to eat).

We must curb unrestrained and ostentatious luxury. In France, the shipyards of Ciotat were closed—unprofitable. But a company has since moved in and is rapidly expanding. It manufactures 30-meter-long yachts and cannot even fulfill its orders. Nothing is too beautiful, too expensive for our new multinational billionaires.

Corollary to rising poverty and widespread plunder: fundamentalism, the last lifeline against the complete collapse of moral values, and terrorism, the refuge of the desperate. Poverty is its breeding ground. Only social justice can combat it. But rich countries see things differently. Under the guise of bringing a completely fake democracy and freedom, they draw their swords, which instantly boosts profits for their arms industries. International agreements are needed to redirect the enormous sums wasted on these activities toward feeding people, caring for their health, educating them better, and managing the planet humanely. But Lincoln has given way to Rambo, and we are heading toward catastrophe in less than ten years.

Voting "No" will be a way to express all this. For me, it does not mean "No to Europe," but rather "Find us another model of planetary society that is not a free-for-all ending inevitably in severe social upheavals." And it is precisely because our "legislators" fully understand the nightmare they are leading us toward that they have already included the clauses above.

Counter initialized on May 26, 2005. Number of views:

Back to Guide Back to Homepage

**** ---